Following the UK Supreme Court decision in Sequana1 at the end of 2022, the New Zealand Supreme Court has now weighed in on the issue of the duties owed by directors of a company in the zone of insolvency in a long-running case involving the liquidation estate of Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited.2
Key Takeaways
In welcome news for insolvency practitioners, the Supreme Court has limited the circumstances in which a dissatisfied bankrupt will have standing to challenge a trustee in bankruptcy's decisions or actions under section 303(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act), to those where there is likely to be a surplus in the bankruptcy estate (subject to only very limited exceptions). The Supreme Court acknowledged that, while this decision is about bankruptcy, the reasoning will also apply to challenges to liquidators' decisions under section 168(5) of the Act.
In welcome news for insolvency practitioners, the Supreme Court has limited the circumstances in which a dissatisfied bankrupt will have standing to challenge a trustee in bankruptcy's decisions or actions under section 303(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act), to those where there is likely to be a surplus in the bankruptcy estate (subject to only very limited exceptions). The Supreme Court acknowledged that, while this decision is about bankruptcy, the reasoning will also apply to challenges to liquidators' decisions under section 168(5) of the Act.
In this edition of Gilbert + Tobin's Corporate Advisory Update, we focus on key legal developments over the last month which are particularly relevant to in-house counsel.
The ACCC’s recommended merger reforms: a deeper dive
The ACCC’s recommended reforms have several significant implications for merging parties:
Litigation between Mr and Mrs Brake, Axnoller Events Ltd and various other parties has been the subject of a significant number of judgments covering a wide range of legal issues. The underlying facts are convoluted but can be briefly summarised for the purpose of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Brake & Anor v The Chedington Court Estate Ltd [2023] UKSC 29 as follows.
The U.K. Financial Services and Markets Act 2023
The High Court has considered the point at which the directors’ duty to consider the interests of creditors arose in the context of a tax mitigation scheme that ultimately failed
The judge found that the duty to consider creditors’ interests had arisen once the directors had become aware that there was a real risk that the scheme would fail and that the company would therefore be unable to pay its debts.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court (SC) handed down judgment in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK Plc [2023] UKSC 25. In summary, the SC found that banks do not owe a duty to refrain from executing customers’ direct payment instructions where there may be an attempt to defraud the customer.
It's out! The Supreme Court has handed down its keenly awaited judgment on whether banks owe a Quincecare duty not to carry out a customer's instructions in cases of suspected fraud.
In recent years much ink has been spilled opining on the so called 'Quincecare' duty of care, and the limits of it (see links to our recent insolvency law updates covering the topic below). The judgment in Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 was a first instance decision on Steyn J, in which he found that a bank has a duty not to execute a payment instruction given by an agent of its customer without making inquiries if the bank has reasonable grounds for believing that the agent is attempting to defraud the customer.